Friday, October 17, 2008

Donald Wildmon, patriarch of the American "Family" Association, is really really upset that McCain/Palin are flailin' in the polls, you betcha, and he's sent out one of the AFA's typically histrionic "Action Alert" e-mails in the hopes of rallying the Hate+Fear Brigade to save America from the scary libruls.

After the usual whining, blaming the ascent of Obama to obviously slanted reportage from the "liberal media"  as if they were the ones responsible for Palin's inability to answer a direct question from a journalist with anything resembling a coherent sentence or displaying even passing knowledge of the topic at hand; as if they were the ones responsible for ramping up the hate rhetoric at recent McCain/Palin rallies, prompting those stalwart supporters of the far right to shout things like "Kill him [Obama, that is]!" within earshot of TV crews; as if they were the ones responsible for McCain's failing to articulate any kind of platform to support the idea that his administration would be anything more than a continuance of the neocon string of disasters that Bush is leaving behind  Wildmon goes into full-on "end of days" Armageddon mode.

If the liberals win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on Judeo-Christian values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a secular state hostile to Christianity. This “city set on a hill” which our forefathers founded, will go dark. The damage will be deep and long lasting. It cannot be turned around in the next election, or the one after that, or by any election in the future. The damage will be permanent. That is why it is so important for you to vote and to encourage friends and family to vote. This is one election where your vote really counts.

Slippery slope much, Don? Well, this is all grist for the mill, after all. Getting people worked up into a lather of fear is fundamentalism's stock in trade, and it's a rhetorical tactic understood by many an ideological zealot in the political realm since time immemorial. Such as...

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

No, I'm not Godwinning by bringing up Goering's famous remarks about war. I'm merely pointing out that Wildmon's principle here is the same. "We're being attacked! [by evil secular libruls who want to take our Bibles away] Vote now, or we'll be exposed to danger!" An appeal to fear, with no basis in reality, in order to get his followers to vote his way.

So yes, everyone should vote, and do it early. Because what Wildmon means when he talks about the "Christianity" he says is threatened is his own, particular brand of homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-progress, anti-equality arch-fundamentalism. It doesn't even include liberal Christians, those millions of believers who don't think that "get the fags!" was part of Jesus's message. To Wildmon, those kinds of Christians doubtless hold pride of place on his "Not True Christians" list.

So vote, all you secular liberals! And won't Wildmon be surprised when, in a liberal secular America, religious freedom is allowed to flourish? Sure, there will be some things you aren't allowed to do. Such as use the government to promote your beliefs over others, or to impose your beliefs as "alternative theories" in science classrooms. But prohibitions like that are all in keeping with supporting religious freedom. After all, if you make Christian prayer mandatory in public schools again, what does that mean for all those non-Christian students? The Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans and otherwise? (The typical AFA answer to that question, I suspect, would be "Screw 'em, they're going to hell anyway," which is not exactly productive. But dealing with fundie ideologues rarely is.)

Anyway, those are examples of conditions our Constitution already covers. That's another difference between secular liberals and fundie neocons. We respect the Constitution, while they only ever treat it like a list of technicalities to be gotten around.

America as Wildmon thinks he has known it  a thoroughly fascistic, totalitarian Christian theocracy  has never existed. And though the neocons have been doing all they can to bring it about over the last eight years, a vote for the sane ticket  the one Wildmon fears to the core of his pitiful, benighted little black heart  will ensure that America remains the country it was in truth founded to be.

So vote! After all, we all want to read the despair-laden blatherings that will issue from Wildmon's pen on November 5, after Obama has won, don't we?

27 comments:

If the conservatives win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on enlightenment values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a theocracy hostile to science.

If the liberals win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on Judeo-Christian values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a secular state hostile to Christianity.

I hope this guy isn't bullshitting us, because I for one am truly excited about this prospect.

Bruce, I hope you didn't mean you're excited about the "hostile to Christianity" part, because governments are supposed to be neutral towards all beliefs.

Anyway, Wildmon, and people like him, seem to take a queue from Jesus' words "Anyone who is not for me is against me" and then translates that to mean that any government that doesn't actively promote Christianity at the expense of other religions and of no faith is, by definition - hostile to Christianity.

Considering the state our country is in, I'd be suprised if much gets done during the next term other than the simple act of getting our economics back on the ground and the war(s) being taken care of.

Kyle: Religious fundamentalists are deeply invested in their sense of victimhood and persecution. After all, Jesus is the hero upon whom they wish to project themselves.

Daniel: No mistake, no one expects a quick fix to the Himalayan levels of disaster 8 years of Bush have given us. It will take at least two terms, and that's just for starters to get things on an even keel. And personally, I don't want the guy who voted with Bush every effin' time being the guy entrusted with that job. Just sayin'.

The point I was making is that they will quote Jesus' words "Anyone who isn't for me is against me . . ." and use that meme to promote the idea that government neutrality towards religion is mathematically impossible.

To expand, the United States government either asserts "Jesus is Lord" or the United States will be cursed and is in league with Satan.

Cipher we have that in Europe more or less, which is fine. I have no problem with us ridiculing superstition and removing it's lofty status.

What I don't want to see is real persecution of people based on their beliefs (not the faux persecution that Christians in the US are claiming). We can win in the marketplace of ideas. If we start doing things such as jailing parents for teaching their kids religion, then, I'm sorry, that's a can of worms I don't think we should open.

If we start doing things such as jailing parents for teaching their kids religion, then, I'm sorry, that's a can of worms I don't think we should open.

I agree only to a point. For example, I feel very strongly that threatening children with eternal damnation (by which I mean representing it as a reality in any way) ought to be regarded as child abuse, and appropriate penalties - including removal of the child from the home - ought to apply.

It's funny, I hear so many people talking about the "judeo-christian" principles on which this country were "founded"...but never once been able to get out of them what those principles are...and how they know we were founded on them. At least those of us who argue for a secular society and a government that is neutral to religion have things to POINT to...you know, the constitution, whatever that is.

Well I'm for a society that's hostile to religion in the way society today is hostile towards smoking. It would also be nice if instead of being tax exempt, it was actually subject to a tax, like the "sin" tax on booze and smokes. ;)

I hate to have to say this, but you guys who expressing desires for a society hostile to religion, whether you're joking or not, aren't really doing a lot to help the rest of us. I mean sure if those honestly are your views, by all means you're entitled to express them, but it might be worth it to stop and consider how much fodder you're going to the arguments of those who want to paint us as bad "Anti-religious" people who want an "atheistic" society. That might sound like I'm arguing for walking on egg-shells to avoid offending others...I'm not, but do you guys really mean that?

With all due respect Sparrowhawk, I think your thinking is all wrong and systematic of what's wrong with a lot of atheist thinking. The real problem is religious people think in terms of conflict, of needing to vanquish or suppress opposition. So, with that mindset, they can't see advocating an alternative POV as anything but confrontational and a challenge and if that POV dares to say the world would be better without religion, well, those are fightin' words, all out, life or death fightin' words. See the problem?

Your strategy of 'let's not inflame the religious' isn't dancing around eggshells, but rather dancing around a mountain of a problem, the black or white, us or them, eternal struggle mindset of the religious. THAT is what has to go away, and that, like religious faith, grows from the fertile ground of ignorance.

What's needed is a war on ignorance. Battling religion is misguided in a way because it's addressing a symptom, not the ill. The ill is ignorance. Now improving education can't happen overnight, but you know where a good place to start is? Improving the perception of ignorance. Today, it's celebrated. That has to change, and why I said I would like to see a society that reacts to religion the way we today react to smoking. First you make it embarrassing and shameful to be ignorant, and then, hopefully, out of that you get a desire to change.

So should I fret about 'hurting the cause' by saying I'd prefer society be less religion friendly? Not at all, because feeding that thinking is feeding the greater problem, and, imo, further enabling the problem. Religion is irrational, potentially dangerous and built on and supported by ignorance and therefore should be shunned and discouraged. I do humanity no great harm in saying that. On the contrary. Humanity needs some tough love.

Okay. If all you meant was fundamentalism, then that's a different story, if by fundamentalism you mean dangerous fundamentalism...you know, the kind that makes people blow stuff up, etc. Unfortunately all you said was christianity. Believe me I'm not about to "defend" christianity itself. All I'm saying is I agree with the tenet that government should be compoletely neutral with regard to religion. And I will admit that I'm not really sure what you guys mean when you're talking about a "society" hostile to religion, but I kind of took that to mean--at least in part--a government that has policies that are hostile to religion. Your "the inmates have been in charge of the asylum long enough" comment in particular is what leads me to believe that's what you meant. I suppose I shouldn't have phrased my comment in that "let's not offend anyone" kind of framework.

@phillychief

Again, I think maybe I just didn't get the point of the previous posts I was responding to. Maybe people were just trying to be funny or get a rise or something but it sounded like a few of the comments on here were leaning toward the "ban religion" mindset (that's an exaggeration, I know). My problem isn't with inflaming anyone. It isn't just that I'm afraid we're going to "inflame" or hurt anyone's feelings here, it's more just...in my view, there are a lot of prominent religious folks out there who want to paint atheism as sort of a "communist" anti-religion type world view, or paint us as people who want to "take away" the faith of others. Now, if anyone here really does think that way...that's fine. You're entitled to your views. My only point was to just...stop and think if that's ACTUALLY what you want to be saying.

All I'm really saying is that my idea really isn't "let's not inflame the religious", it's "let's avoid saying things we don't actually mean". I would just like to think that the goal of a lot of us here is to "clear up" misconceptions about atheism, and I think one of the huge misconceptions being put out there is that we all want to use the state to "take away" people's faith. My only complaint is that the "society hostile to christianity" comments aren't going to help clear up that misconception at all. Unless of course it isn't a misconception and that really IS what you meant. If it is, well that's an entirely different matter.

"After all, if you make Christian prayer mandatory in public schools again, what does that mean for all those non-Christian students?"

One point that the fundamentalists forget is that if it comes down to a vote, with the plurality winning, Roman Catholicism would win for the most numerous religion. Which means that without separation of church and state firmly grounded in our constitution, the school prayer would be a prayer for the Pope (regarded as the Antichrist by some protestant sects), and the ultra fundamentalists could be thrown into the jail by the Catholics.

It's a good thing that Catholics have never done anything like that....

...there are a lot of prominent religious folks out there who want to paint atheism as sort of a "communist" anti-religion type world view, or paint us as people who want to "take away" the faith of others...

Then it doesn't matter what I say, does it?

Like I said already, anything I say that is at odds with a religious POV, no matter how slight, will be met as a threatening challenge. The problem isn't that I may inflame, but rather how easily they can be inflamed and the willingness, as you've stated, for their leaders to use whatever I say to inflame. Pussy footing around with polite language to limit the material such people have to work with to inflame or get inflamed is a fool's errand.

maddogdelta: It was, in fact, the Catholics mostly who we have to thank for a lot of the Bible not in school business because in America, Protestants are the majority and they didn't want a Protestant Bible used to teach their kids.

Again, I COMPLETELY agree, but what you're describing is not a government that is "hostile" toward christianity. What you're describing is a secular society, one that I would argue for. You just made it sound earlier like you wanted to take it a step further than that. But whatever, I think we can let this rest for now.

@phillychiefProtestants are the majority and they didn't want a Protestant Bible used to teach their kids

While "protestants" are considered the majority, the largest Christian sect is still Roman Catholicism. As far as "protestant unity", I doubt you will find Southern Baptists sitting in the same room with AME parishioners if they could help it. On the other hand, many of the more moderate Episcopals might vote with the Catholics on many issues (except the primacy of the Pope)

But you are correct, that it is in large part due to Catholic agitators who worked against the "protestentization" (is that a word?) of American society, and in passing, defending a secular society.

Although, their first attempt was to simply set up a Catholic school system, potentially ghettoizing Catholics, rather than changing the public school systems.

It would be fun to watch (not really to live through) someone like Wildmon having to live in an environment where the Catholics are imposing their version of christianity on him.

Maybe we can rig up a "God channel" version of "Big Brother", to see how apoplectic he gets.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but I don't want to know. I do know of some libertarian types who have been fooled into thinking the Republicans are on there side because they want "small government" or they're really into the whole free market idea...but if you ask me they're just being played like harpstrings.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.